A No1mk3* with, a really, REALLY low serial number?

[louthepou]

Hi folks,

Well here's a riddle.

An acquaintance of mine is looking at buying a 1916-dated, Enfield-built No1Mk3*.
It's a "C broad-arrow" stamped specimen. He's wondering how come it has, for serial number, "16". no extra numbers, no letter, just "16". The forend, bolt both have the same serial number as well.

Any clue as to how possible that is? I haven't seen pictures yet (hence my enquiry...).

I remember a fellow showing an earlier specimen found in Newfoundland with a serial number "3", but that was an LEC or some other less-common rifle...

Thansk for any info!

Lou

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Thunderbox]

Low numbers on SMLEs do exist, although naturally they are rare - the remaining survivors from each of the 10,000 (e.g. 4-digit) or 100,000 (5-digit) numbering blocks used by the manufacturers.

It would be odd to just have a "16" without any letter prefix.

Post some photos. it might be that the rifle has been scrubbed and renumbered.

[5thBatt]

Enfield used up to 4 digits in their serial numbers, starting at 1 to 9999 then A1-A9999, B1-B9999 etc etc etc, a 1916 with the serial number 16 is just rifle number 16 of a new run of serial numbers, there will be earlier rifles with the serial number 16 & no doubt later ones as well.
As there is 26 letters in the alphabet & only 9999 rifles in each letter block (plus the 9999 no prefix) there would be roughly 270,000 rifles in each run though the alphabet, in the "bible" Ian gives us a rough production number of 2,235,000 for Enfield, this would (in theory) give us at least 8 runs though the alphabet & therefor 8 rifles with the serial number 16 so in reality the serial number is not "a low serial number" only the number is low.

[lavoltiges]

hello to all

louthepou friend mentioned it's me
here are some pictures of heading 1916 or 1918 * 1mk3
I think it is a 1918
the old man who sold it to me was not clear: D)

I thank you in advance for your help

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

---------- Post added at 10:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 AM ----------

sorry for my english

[Thunderbox]

Hmmmm....

Nosecap is a recent re-number; probably a recent addition

Wood - which is Indian - also looks like a recent renumber.

Hard to tell from the photos, but also looks like the receiver and rearsight are numbered in different fonts.

Rifle could be a sporter that someone has tried to recreate as a military rifle.

[jmoore]

A close-up photo of the left hand side of the butt socket might answer some questions. Also removing the rear handguard would reveal additional info. (Strong fingers generally required, though!)

The rear sight number seems OK to me, mostly because replacement assemblies would have the old number barred out. Seems unlikely to have had any previous markings removed. Otherwise, Thunderbox's assessment seems spot on, as usual.

[jrhead75]

Breaking out my rusty (and very limited) math skills, RSAF Enfield got through the whole s/n sequence roughly 2.3 times in 1918, so there would've been 2 or 3 rifles with s/n 16 that year, depending on where they were in the cycle at the beginning of the year.

[5thBatt]

Breaking out my rusty (and very limited) math skills, RSAF Enfield got through the whole s/n sequence roughly 2.3 times in 1918, so there would've been 2 or 3 rifles with s/n 16 that year, depending on where they were in the cycle at the beginning of the year.

So if you found s/n 17 or 15 from the same year, could you claim consecutive serial numbers???

[Homer]

So if you found s/n 17 or 15 from the same year, could you claim consecutive serial numbers???

I would.

[muffett.2008]

The barrel months might be a bugger.